Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality

[EmperorNapoleon]

No, gnjsdad, usury was forbidden by the Church, not interest. Does not the gospel of Matthew say, “Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.” Taking interest is not inherently immoral.

No, the Church did not change its teaching. Here is a link to a good article explaining this:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646

"Due to advances in transportation, communications and generally expanding economies, the nature of money itself has changed in the course of time. A loan that was usurious at one point in history, due to the unfruitfulness of money, is not usurious later, when the development of competitive markets has changed the nature of money itself. But this is not a change of the Church’s teaching on usury. Today nearly all commercial transactions, including monetary loans at interest, do not qualify as usury. This constitutes a change only in the nature of the financial transaction itself, not in the teaching of the Church on usury. "Still she maintains dogmatically that there is such a sin as usury, and what it is, as defined in the Fifth Council of Lateran "(ibid., 263)."

Ishii

The Fifth Council of Lateran defined usury as “receiving any interest on money.” This was changed in 1917 and codified in canon law as “the charging of excessive interest.” People can hem and haw and make the odd claim that the nature of money has changed, but redefining usury is a rather noticeable shift in Church teaching. I mean, you can’t get around the fact that the teaching changed by claiming that merely redefining the meaning of usury doesn’t constitute a change. No reasonable person would buy that.

 

[freeRadical]

Not according to defined Church doctrine, which condemns usury, not excessive usury. Usury has always meant interest.

What you are saying in effect here is that the Church at one point changed its defined teaching. At one time, charging interest for money was morally wrong. At another time, it is not morally wrong. Once something is defined as morally wrong, it’s always morally wrong. It’d be like the Church changing its teaching on contraception, or divorce and remarriage. If the Church changed its teaching on usury as you suggest it did, it would no longer be the Church founded by Jesus Christ, which is an impossibility.

Look it up. The Church does not teach that charging interest on money is morally wrong. If that was the case, that would mean that every Catholic who saved or invested their money would be guilty of sin. Every Catholic with a mortgage would be guilty of sin. Every Catholic with a student loan would be guilty of sin. Next time I’m at confession I’m going to ask my priest for forgiveness for having a student loan, I wonder what he will say

Answer me this, if it was illegal to charge or earn interest on money do you think people would save or invest their money? How would people borrow money? No one would lend money if they couldn’t earn interest on it. How would people have mortgages? Buy cars?

 

[freeRadical]

You’re free to leave the discussion whenever you run out of justifications for economic slavery of the Third World…

You do know that most of the Third World does not have free market, Capitalistic socio-economic conditions right?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Furthermore, the Swedish model violates the Catholic church teaching on the principle of subsidiarity.

Can you point to a place where the Church has actually taught this? I mean, one can have an opinion that it violates subsidiarity but one can also be of the opinion that it does not as well. After all, the Church has never come out and said that government provided healthcare violates subsidiarity, or that government welfare programs violate subsidiarity. T

I am not in favor of the Swedish model, but I cannot find Church teaching that unequivocally says that any of their programs violate subsidiarity.

That said, I do like the Swedish model for postal services. I think it would be a real step forward if we got rid of the post office and let supermarkets and discount stores handle the mail for us. We would get more hours of service and we wouldn’t have to pay clerks $50k per year.

 

[CaptFun]

Ah yes, “trickle-down” in the document that spurred*** “The Pope vs. Rush Limbaugh controversy” !***

Punctuated by Pope Francis being named “Person of the Year” by Time Magazine for 2013 in the middle of it.

Rush Home - The Rush Limbaugh Show

But the media is all agog now that Francis indirectly responded to and clarified what Limbaugh said sounded like " … pure Marxism from the mouth of the Pope …" by his simple statement " … I am not a Marxist."

Limbaugh had clarifications of his own about what he meant in his soundbite, which was elsewhere paraphrased more broadly …

And, by the way, Gordon Peterson even mischaracterized me in the question. “Rush Limbaugh says he’s Karl Marx out to destroy free market capitalism.” That’s not what I said at all. What I said was that if this is true, the pope doesn’t understand economics.

The Lord Does Work in Mysterious Ways < rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/12/16/the_lord_does_work_in_mysterious_ways

This excerpt from the Limbaugh program goes everywhere from the initial controversy (the subject of this thread) to the media’s far reaching takes on it … particularly Pope Francis responding (indirectly per the source, but specifically to the word “Marxism” in a succeeding statement … and clarification).

To the radio host’s praise of Catholicism in general (and his sometime defense of it against anti-Catholic critics). And a Catholic caller with an engaging observation about the plethora of gift shops and other capitalistic endeavors which operate “all around”, and on the Vatican grounds itself (patronized happily by the throng of tourists who want momentos of their trip, etc.).

RUSH: … And so people are engaging in trickle-down when they visit the gift shop. But you’re right, it’s not just the Vatican. I have to tell you, I’ve been more than once, too. I’m not Catholic, but I am so moved every time I’ve been there. I’ve spent days there, and I have done the various guided tours, private tours and so forth, and I mean, I’m not gonna bother sharing my personal reaction to it, but I was in awe, particularly the first time that I was there … I was telling people how in awe I was to see what people’s religious beliefs could inspire in them, and I had people calling me the most vicious things.

“What do you mean, religious beliefs? There was none of that, Rush. Everybody that did that was paid. The pope’s commissioned it. There wasn’t any religious beliefs that built that. That was just money. They were just being paid to do it that way.” Ripping into Michelangelo and Sistine Chapel ceilings and so forth. And that was '85, some years ago, 20, 30 years ago, whatever. That was my first exposure to real venom. But when I grew up nobody hated churches in my little town … I was speaking of how in awe I was of the Vatican and call after call after call, “You gotta wake up. You gotta understand something. That wasn’t religious beliefs that inspired that. That was evil popes commissioning people to do that or they die, and they were all doing it for money. There wasn’t anything about religious.”

I said, “Sir, you can’t tell me that there wasn’t some divine --” and I remember talking about this to Mr. Buckley, who of course had been there with Charlton Heston when they filmed Michelangelo. Look, the point here is that I have an almost profound, in-awe respect and curiosity about the Catholic Church and the Vatican and its history. I only mention this because my intention with the pope was not at all anti-Vatican, anti-religion, anti-Catholic at all. I was just simply stunned at what I thought was just utter, sheer – I mean, the lingo was no different than what you would read in a post at the Democrat Underground about capitalism. It really floored me and I was really taken aback by it.

bridgeandtunnelclub.com/bigmap/outoftown/italy/lazio/rome/cittadelvaticano/giftshop/



Tourists patronizing the Vatican Post Office and Gift Shop.

**(From the Catechism of the Catholic Church) CCC 2425 – ** The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

 

[Filii_Dei]

The Fifth Council of Lateran defined usury as “receiving any interest on money.” This was changed in 1917 and codified in canon law as “the charging of excessive interest.” People can hem and haw and make the odd claim that the nature of money has changed, but redefining usury is a rather noticeable shift in Church teaching. I mean, you can’t get around the fact that the teaching changed by claiming that merely redefining the meaning of usury doesn’t constitute a change. No reasonable person would buy that.

Your argument would have made for interesting reading, but only if it were true. No reasonable person would buy the oft-repeated claim that the Catholic Church changed its teaching on usury. If you actually researched the primary sources, you would never find a single declaration from the Fifth Council of Lateran that defines usury as “receiving any interest on money”, because the Council never said that. What you are quoting are people’s own spin on what they think the Council said. What the Council actually said was this:
“For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk (Session X).”

There is a big difference between “a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk” and “any interest whatsoever”.

It would be foolish to think that this refers to all forms of investment and that no interest may be charged at all, because most investments come with a certain degree of work, risk and expense, and interest is precisely meant to help mitigate the work, risk and expense that is needed on the part of the lender. There is work because investors need to investigate their investment prospects and choose their options carefully; expense because these investors are moving money away from their assets in order to capitalise a potential business; risk because not all investments succeed, and that money can be lost if the investment fails. If there is no interest, then there is no reason why anybody should lend their money, for they have to bear costs of the work, expense and risk, and yet get no return for all this effort. It is therefore reasonable to charge an acceptable amount of interest in order to account for all this.

What the Council meant to target must be taken in context with Scripture and Jewish Tradition. The regulations on interest in both Scripture and Tradition are targeted at preventing the exploitation of the rich by the poor. Rich people with excessive money would otherwise have this money lying around doing nothing, and they would lend it to the poor at disproportionate interest rates. This carries with it no work (for the poor simply ask for the money), no expense (for the money is not otherwise being used), and no risk (for the poor would be forced to repay the loan by hook or by crook with no legal rights). This is precisely what is known as excessive interest, for it is not proportionate to the work, expense or risk (or lack thereof) involved in such loans. This is what is known as usury has been rightly been condemned by the Church through the centuries, even before the time of Christ. However, not once since time of the Israelites was the practice of interest completely banned. Christ refined the moral standards by which we should treat each other, which includes moneylending of course, but He did not ban it. Therefore, to claim that the Church decided one day to to ban all forms of interest is spurious and has no basis except in contemporary imagination. There was no change in the meaning of the Canon Law whatsoever.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Your argument would have made for interesting reading, but only if it were true. No reasonable person would buy the oft-repeated claim that the Catholic Church changed its teaching on usury. If you actually researched the primary sources, you would never find a single declaration from the Fifth Council of Lateran that defines usury as “receiving any interest on money”, because the Council never said that. What you are quoting are people’s own spin on what they think the Council said. What the Council actually said was this:
“For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk (Session X).”

There is a big difference between “a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk” and “any interest whatsoever”.

It would be foolish to think that this refers to all forms of investment and that no interest may be charged at all, because most investments come with a certain degree of work, risk and expense, and interest is precisely meant to help mitigate the work, risk and expense that is needed on the part of the lender. There is work because investors need to investigate their investment prospects and choose their options carefully; expense because these investors are moving money away from their assets in order to capitalise a potential business; risk because not all investments succeed, and that money can be lost if the investment fails. If there is no interest, then there is no reason why anybody should lend their money, for they have to bear costs of the work, expense and risk, and yet get no return for all this effort. It is therefore reasonable to charge an acceptable amount of interest in order to account for all this.

What the Council meant to target must be taken in context with Scripture and Jewish Tradition. The regulations on interest in both Scripture and Tradition are targeted at preventing the exploitation of the rich by the poor. Rich people with excessive money would otherwise have this money lying around doing nothing, and they would lend it to the poor at disproportionate interest rates. This carries with it no work (for the poor simply ask for the money), no expense (for the money is not otherwise being used), and no risk (for the poor would be forced to repay the loan by hook or by crook with no legal rights). This is precisely what is known as excessive interest, for it is not proportionate to the work, expense or risk (or lack thereof) involved in such loans. This is what is known as usury has been rightly been condemned by the Church through the centuries, even before the time of Christ. However, not once since time of the Israelites was the practice of interest completely banned. Christ refined the moral standards by which we should treat each other, which includes moneylending of course, but He did not ban it. Therefore, to claim that the Church decided one day to to ban all forms of interest is spurious and has no basis except in contemporary imagination. There was no change in the meaning of the Canon Law whatsoever.

You beat me to it.

 

[DennyO]

That said, I do like the Swedish model for postal services. I think it would be a real step forward if we got rid of the post office and let supermarkets and discount stores handle the mail for us. We would get more hours of service and we wouldn’t have to pay clerks $50k per year.

Your last sentence says a lot. It seems our economic philosophy has become twisted over the past generation such that we have become conditioned to put down working people who have attained some success through collective bargaining while defending those at the top end of the economic pyramid who make a multiples of hundreds (sometimes even thousands) what they pay their regular workers. As a former postal employee myself, $50K per year is largely an outcome of inflation over time, there have been few real (after inflation) salary increases over the 28 years I worked. Yet, there were many productivity increases through adoption of optical character reading and computerized point-of-sale technologies in the postal world.

It seems to me that one of our real economic problems has been regular wages and salaries slipping back over the past thirty years or so since the election of Ronald Reagan, which brought in a shift against collective bargaining. The reason why there are so many workers not paying income taxes is that their incomes have not kept up. Same thing if one looks back at the situation in the Great Depression.

Pope Francis does not prescribe the remedy for our economic ills, but he points out that a philosophy of unbridled capitalism is neither moral nor effective. It seems in this forum, the focus has been on the discussion of tax remedies (or their pitfalls) in doing this function. But, lets not forget collective bargaining by workers and a just minimum wage play a big role, maybe a bigger one than tax policies.

In many ways, this statement by Pope Francis echoes the attitude of Pope Leo XIII over a century ago in his encyclical "Rerum Novarum. Then too there was a large social struggle over the division of the economic pie. Pope Leo saw one road to progress was the establishment of unions: “It is gratifying to know that there are actually in existence not a few associations of this nature, consisting either of workmen alone, or of workmen and employers together, but it were greatly to be desired that they should become more numerous and more efficient.”

My own children, now in their late twenties and early thirties, are not faring as well financially as my wife and I did in the 1970’s, although they have availed themselves of higher education. I eagerly await the day when one announces they are expecting a child. But, right now, it seems they are trying to put their financial state in order.

 

[estesbob]

Your last sentence says a lot. It seems our economic philosophy has become twisted over the past generation such that we have become conditioned to put down working people who have attained some success through collective bargaining while defending those at the top end of the economic pyramid who make a multiples of hundreds (sometimes even thousands) what they pay their regular workers. As a former postal employee myself, $50K per year is largely an outcome of inflation over time, there have been few real (after inflation) salary increases over the 28 years I worked. Yet, there were many productivity increases through adoption of optical character reading and computerized point-of-sale technologies in the postal world.

It seems to me that one of our real economic problems has been regular wages and salaries slipping back over the past thirty years or so since the election of Ronald Reagan, which brought in a shift against collective bargaining. The reason why there are so many workers not paying income taxes is that their incomes have not kept up. Same thing if one looks back at the situation in the Great Depression.

Pope Francis does not prescribe the remedy for our economic ills, but he points out that a philosophy of unbridled capitalism is neither moral nor effective. It seems in this forum, the focus has been on the discussion of tax remedies (or their pitfalls) in doing this function. But, lets not forget collective bargaining by workers and a just minimum wage play a big role, maybe a bigger one than tax policies.

In many ways, this statement by Pope Francis echoes the attitude of Pope Leo XIII over a century ago in his encyclical "Rerum Novarum. Then too there was a large social struggle over the division of the economic pie. Pope Leo saw one road to progress was the establishment of unions: “It is gratifying to know that there are actually in existence not a few associations of this nature, consisting either of workmen alone, or of workmen and employers together, but it were greatly to be desired that they should become more numerous and more efficient.”

My own children, now in their late twenties and early thirties, are not faring as well financially as my wife and I did in the 1970’s, although they have availed themselves of higher education. I eagerly await the day when one announces they are expecting a child. But, right now, it seems they are trying to put their financial state in order.

Collective bargaining in the private sector is fine. Collective bargaining in the public sector destroys cities.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Your argument would have made for interesting reading, but only if it were true. No reasonable person would buy the oft-repeated claim that the Catholic Church changed its teaching on usury. If you actually researched the primary sources, you would never find a single declaration from the Fifth Council of Lateran that defines usury as “receiving any interest on money”, because the Council never said that. What you are quoting are people’s own spin on what they think the Council said. What the Council actually said was this:
“For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk (Session X).”

There is a big difference between “a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk” and “any interest whatsoever”.

Lets not truncate the quote. The full quote is this:

“For this reason they cannot avoid the crime of usury or injustice, that is to say a clearly defined evil, since our Lord, according to Luke the evangelist, has bound us by a clear command that we ought not to expect any addition to the capital sum when we grant a loan. For, that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.”

Emphasis mine. Once again, we’re presented with the difference between any and excessive. I am not saying that the change was necessarily a bad thing but it is a change nonetheless and one which turned a clear sin into one of nebulous prudentialism.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Lets not truncate the quote. The full quote is this:

“For this reason they cannot avoid the crime of usury or injustice, that is to say a clearly defined evil, since our Lord, according to Luke the evangelist, has bound us by a clear command that we ought not to expect any addition to the capital sum when we grant a loan. For, that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.”

The Fifth Lateran Council is saying that there is nothing intrinsic to a loan that demands interest. IOW demanding interest merely because you are loaning money is unjust. However, there are reasons extrinsic to a loan contract that may make interest morally justifiable. Today, it is just assumed, unless the Church speaks out about some specific thing (e.g third world debt), that interest collected on a loan is justified for extrinsic reasons.

Here are some relevant parts from the Encyclical Vix Pervenit (Benedict XIV) that expands on the Council and the issue of usury:

• We do not deny that at times together with the loan contract certain other titles-which are not at all intrinsic to the contract-may run parallel with it. From these other titles, entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand something over and above the amount due on the contract.

…

But it is essential for these people, also, to avoid extremes, which are always evil. For instance, there are some who judge these matters with such severity that they hold any profit derived from money to be illegal and usurious; in contrast to them, there are some so indulgent and so remiss that they hold any gain whatsoever to be free of usury. *

Father John Hardon clarifies further on these extrinsic reasons:

*Four external circumstances have an economic value and therefore constitute titles to a proportionate compensation over and above the restitution of what was loaned. They are: actual damage, loss of profit, risk to the object loaned, and danger from delay in returning what was lent. Only such titles, external to the loan, when truly present, justify the right to claim and the duty to pay a just rate of interest on money loaned.

Capitalism, with unlimited opportunities for investment, changed the function of money so that it can fructify. Consequently loaning money did* involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay inreturning the money loaned. By the end of the eighteenth century the distinction between usury and interest was recognized in civil law. The Church also recognized the distinction so that now only exorbitant interest is called usury and considered morally wrong. In the process, however, the Church’s basic teaching on the subject did not change. Injustice surrounding money lending was and remains condemned. What changed was the economic system. As this changed, the circumstances under which an unjustice is committed changed. The Church necessarily permitted what was no longer unjust.*

*The link has “did not”, but the “not” shouldn’t be there. See here.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Collective bargaining in the private sector is -]fine/-] good. Collective bargaining in the public sector usually destroys cities.

 

[Dawnia]

The Fifth Council of Lateran defined usury as “receiving any interest on money.” This was changed in 1917 and codified in canon law as “the charging of excessive interest.” People can hem and haw and make the odd claim that the nature of money has changed, but redefining usury is a rather noticeable shift in Church teaching. I mean, you can’t get around the fact that the teaching changed by claiming that merely redefining the meaning of usury doesn’t constitute a change. No reasonable person would buy that.

You might want to try reading that again, because the 5th Lateran Council says the exact opposite of what you claim.

EDIT: From Sesson 12 The whole document is available here

Since, therefore, this whole question appears to concern the peace and tranquility of the whole Christian state, we declare and define, with the approval of the sacred council, that the above-mentioned credit organisations, established by states and hitherto approved and confirmed by the authority of the apostolic see, do not introduce any kind of evil or provide any incentive to sin if they receive, in addition to the capital, a moderate sum for their expenses and by way of compensation, provided it is intended exclusively to defray the expenses of those employed and of other things pertaining (as mentioned) to the upkeep of the organisations, and provided that no profit is made therefrom. They ought not, indeed, to be condemned in any way. Rather, such a type of lending is meritorious and should be praised and approved. It certainly should not be considered as usurious; it is lawful to preach the piety and mercy of such organisations to the people, including the indulgences granted for this purpose by the holy apostolic see; and in the future, with the approval of the apostolic see, other similar credit organisations can be established. It would, however, be much more perfect and more holy if such credit organisations were completely gratuitous: that is, if those establishing them provided definite sums with which would be paid, if not the total expenses, then at least half the wages of those employed by the organisations, with the result that the debt of the poor would be lightened thereby. We therefore decree that Christ’s faithful ought to be prompted, by a grant of substantial indulgences, to give aid to the poor by providing the sums of which we have spoken, m order to meet the costs of the organisations.

 

[Dawnia]

Lets not truncate the quote. The full quote is this:

“For this reason they cannot avoid the crime of usury or injustice, that is to say a clearly defined evil, since our Lord, according to Luke the evangelist, has bound us by a clear command that we ought not to expect any addition to the capital sum when we grant a loan. For, that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.”

Emphasis mine. Once again, we’re presented with the difference between any and excessive. I am not saying that the change was necessarily a bad thing but it is a change nonetheless and one which turned a clear sin into one of nebulous prudentialism.

That is one argument presented. Not the conclusion.

 

[KSU]

After all, the Church has never come out and said that government provided healthcare violates subsidiarity, or that government welfare programs violate subsidiarity.

Most Reverend Joseph F. Naumann - Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas
Most Reverend Robert W. Finn - Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph
August 22, 2009

EXCERPTS

QUOTE
The Principle of Subsidiarity: Preamble to the Work of Reform

This notion that health care ought to be determined at the lowest level rather than at the higher strata of society, has been promoted by the Church as “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is that principle by which we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives. (See: Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ## 185ff.; Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1883) The writings of recent Popes have warned that the neglect of subsidiarity can lead to an excessive centralization of human services, which in turn leads to excessive costs, and loss of personal responsibility and quality of care.
Pope John Paul II wrote:

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus #48)
And Pope Benedict writes:

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est #28)

While subsidiarity is vital to the structure of justice, we can see from what the Popes say that it rests on a more fundamental principal, the unchanging dignity of the person. The belief in the innate value of human life and the transcendent dignity of the human person must be the primordial driving force of reform efforts.

Principle of the Obligation to the Common Good: Why We Must Act

The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the obligation to promote the common good as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and easily.” (CCC #1906)

It is very clear that, respectful of this principle, we must find some way to provide a safety net for people in need without diminishing personal responsibility or creating an inordinately bureaucratic structure which will be vulnerable to financial abuse, be crippling to our national economy, and remove the sense of humanity from the work of healing and helping the sick.

The Church clearly advocates authentic reform which addresses this obligation, while respecting the fundamental dignity of persons and not undermining the stability of future generations.

Conclusion: We Can Not Be Passive

These last two principles: Solidarity and the Promotion of the Common Good cause us to say that we cannot be passive concerning health care policy in our country. There is important work to be done, but “change” for change’s sake; change which expands the reach of government beyond its competence would do more harm than good. Change which loses sight of man’s transcendent dignity or the irreplaceable value of human life; change which could diminish the role of those in need as agents of their own care is not truly human progress at all.

A hasty or unprincipled change could cause us, in fact, to lose some of the significant benefits that Americans now enjoy, while creating a future tax burden which is both unjust and unsustainable.

We urge the President, Congress, and other elected and appointed leaders to develop prescriptions for reforming health care which are built on objective truths: that all people in every stage of human life count for something; that if we violate our core beliefs we are not aiding people in need, but instead devaluing their human integrity and that of us all. END QUOTE

Unfortunately, stinkcat 14, the Democrats did not listen. Imagine that!

 

[Silvio_Dante]

A reminder of the current Pope’s thinking in the myth of Trickle Down Economics…:

*Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.

This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralised workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.*

 

[DennyO]

You might want to try reading that again, because the 5th Lateran Council says the exact opposite of what you claim.

EDIT: From Sesson 12 The whole document is available here

The extract provided would deem most lending practices today by financial institutions, perhaps excluding credit unions, to be usury. Not only by end result, but also by intent.

 

[ReConverted]

Of course. But the voters have finally caught on.

Which is why the Tea Party nuts in Congress are on the way out, thanks be to God.

 

[ReConverted]

With all due respect, much of this thread has been devoted to trying to prevent others from distorting what the Pope said in order to further narrow-minded ideological/partisan points. From looking at the last few posts here, I can see the distorting continues.

Ishii

Sure, Ishii, you go with that story. Lots of Catholics worshiping mammon on this forum. It’s disgusting.

 

[ReConverted]

When did the Pope use the words “trickle down economics” ? He didn’t. But there is no shortage of ideologues that will twist what he says to serve their own partisan ends.

Ishii

The word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, yet we believe in the Trinity.